How to create a multi-page JPG or PDF

nospam wrote:
do you edit photos in a browser

Of course not. I read documents distributed all over the world, written
by all kinds of people on all kinds of machines using all kinds of tools
and referred and linked to in all kinds of other documents. That's what
the browser was invented for.

Now remind me, what was it I wanted to do at the NYT? Edit their
photographs?

so clearly you use an app for mail instead of a browser and it
looks like you don't use a browser for
usenet either, which makes you a hypocrite.

Mail is not browsing, neither is Usenet. But reading newspaper articles
is. One could make the point that reading whole books isn't, but then
ebook is a variant of HTML and ebook readers are specialized browsers in
essence.

a browser is good for some things. it is *not* good for everything.

You ever met anyone who said otherwise? I haven't.

why do you not want users to be able to use what they want?

As all people are so aware of their real needs and wants, obviously
advertising and commercials are purely a waste of money with no effect
at all.

Axel

In article , says...

nospam wrote:
do you edit photos in a browser

Of course not. I read documents distributed all over the world, written
by all kinds of people on all kinds of machines using all kinds of tools
and referred and linked to in all kinds of other documents. That's what
the browser was invented for.

Now remind me, what was it I wanted to do at the NYT? Edit their
photographs?

so clearly you use an app for mail instead of a browser and it
looks like you don't use a browser for
usenet either, which makes you a hypocrite.

Mail is not browsing, neither is Usenet. But reading newspaper articles
is. One could make the point that reading whole books isn't, but then
ebook is a variant of HTML and ebook readers are specialized browsers in
essence.

Some ebook formats are HTML variants, not all. And ebook readers are
not "apps", they are dedicated hardware, although they can be emulated
by "apps" or by application programs.

a browser is good for some things. it is *not* good for everything.

You ever met anyone who said otherwise? I haven't.

why do you not want users to be able to use what they want?

As all people are so aware of their real needs and wants, obviously
advertising and commercials are purely a waste of money with no effect
at all.

I for one rather resent the notion that I have to be exposed to
advertising to know my "real needs and wants". The point of advertising
is to convince people that they have a "real need and want" for
something for which they have neither.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:59:51 -0500, nospam wrote:

... users *want* apps.

I marvel that you never get blue in the face, no matter how often you
repeat yourself. But I tire of seeing you make assertions that fail for me.
(Not that I imagine you'll stop doing so on my account :-) .)

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

In article , Axel Berger
wrote:

do you edit photos in a browser

Of course not.

exactly the point. apps do a better job than a browser for most things.

I read documents distributed all over the world, written
by all kinds of people on all kinds of machines using all kinds of tools
and referred and linked to in all kinds of other documents. That's what
the browser was invented for.

technology moves forward and now there are better and more capable ways
to do that.

why are you stuck in the past?


Now remind me, what was it I wanted to do at the NYT? Edit their
photographs?

entirely missing the point.

so clearly you use an app for mail instead of a browser and it
looks like you don't use a browser for
usenet either, which makes you a hypocrite.

Mail is not browsing, neither is Usenet. But reading newspaper articles
is.

they're not significantly different, other than the content.

you're stuck in the past.

and email and usenet fits your description above, being documents
distributed all over the world and written by all kinds of people, yet
you say you use dedicated apps for them.

One could make the point that reading whole books isn't, but then
ebook is a variant of HTML and ebook readers are specialized browsers in
essence.

are you actually saying people should read ebooks in a browser???

ebook apps are *much* more than a specialized browser.

a browser is good for some things. it is *not* good for everything.

You ever met anyone who said otherwise? I haven't.

yes you have, by insisting on reading newspaper articles in a browser.

you're assuming that an app does exactly the same thing a browser does,
except that it's a standalone app. that is completely wrong.

dedicated apps can do *so* much more than a browser ever could and in
far easier and better ways.

why are you against progress?

why do you not want users to be able to use what they want?

As all people are so aware of their real needs and wants, obviously
advertising and commercials are purely a waste of money with no effect
at all.

in other words, you don't want to give people what they want.

and by the way, not all apps have ads, so if you are anti-ads, you are
actually *for* standalone apps.

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:


so clearly you use an app for mail instead of a browser and it
looks like you don't use a browser for
usenet either, which makes you a hypocrite.

Mail is not browsing, neither is Usenet. But reading newspaper articles
is. One could make the point that reading whole books isn't, but then
ebook is a variant of HTML and ebook readers are specialized browsers in
essence.

Some ebook formats are HTML variants, not all. And ebook readers are
not "apps", they are dedicated hardware, although they can be emulated
by "apps" or by application programs.

some ebook readers are dedicated hardware and others are in the form of
an app running on a tablet, desktop computer or even a phone.

assuming all types of ebook readers being equivalent is your first of
many mistakes.

a browser is good for some things. it is *not* good for everything.

You ever met anyone who said otherwise? I haven't.

why do you not want users to be able to use what they want?

As all people are so aware of their real needs and wants, obviously
advertising and commercials are purely a waste of money with no effect
at all.

I for one rather resent the notion that I have to be exposed to
advertising to know my "real needs and wants".

apps don't necessarily have ads, whereas you're almost guaranteed to
see ads in a browser, so if your issue is not seeing ads, you *want* to
use an app.

The point of advertising
is to convince people that they have a "real need and want" for
something for which they have neither.

you have no idea what other people need or want, nor are you in a
position to tell them what they should do.

some people don't mind ads since they want to be made aware of products
they otherwise would not have known about, while other people do mind
ads, going so far to block them. most people don't care one way or the
other.

people can decide for themselves what works best for them, not you.

In article , tlvp
wrote:

... users *want* apps.

I marvel that you never get blue in the face, no matter how often you
repeat yourself. But I tire of seeing you make assertions that fail for me.
(Not that I imagine you'll stop doing so on my account :-) .)

you have no apps at all? you do *everything* in a browser? somehow i
find that *very* hard to believe. and even if you have no apps, why
should what you do be what everyone should do?

the fact is that users want native apps and have overwhelmingly
rejected web apps running in a browser. that's reality, no matter how
much you think otherwise.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:05:17 -0500, nospam wrote:

In article , tlvp
wrote:

you have no apps at all?

No apps at all.

... you do *everything* in a browser?

Hardly. I use a browser to see (and interact with) stuff that's on the web.
I use programs for everything else.

... somehow i
find that *very* hard to believe.

You should. After all, it's not true.

... and even if you have no apps, why
should what you do be what everyone should do?

I don't know. Should it even? Why?

the fact is that users want native apps and have overwhelmingly
rejected web apps running in a browser. that's reality, no matter how
much you think otherwise.

Do users want native apps? I doubt that I do, any more than I want "web
apps running in a browser." Do I think otherwise of what you claim is
"reality"? I doubt it -- remember, I too reject web apps, same as I reject
all other apps. But keep building up straw men, if you like :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

In article , tlvp
wrote:

you have no apps at all?

No apps at all.

... you do *everything* in a browser?

Hardly. I use a browser to see (and interact with) stuff that's on the web.
I use programs for everything else.

so you do have apps, exactly as i thought.

... somehow i
find that *very* hard to believe.

You should. After all, it's not true.

it is true. you even admitted you have apps.

... and even if you have no apps, why
should what you do be what everyone should do?

I don't know. Should it even? Why?

why should what you do dictate what others do?

the fact is that users want native apps and have overwhelmingly
rejected web apps running in a browser. that's reality, no matter how
much you think otherwise.

Do users want native apps? I doubt that I do, any more than I want "web
apps running in a browser."

users have overwhelmingly rejected web apps in favour of native apps.

Do I think otherwise of what you claim is
"reality"? I doubt it -- remember, I too reject web apps, same as I reject
all other apps. But keep building up straw men, if you like :-) .

it's reality, and you don't reject web apps at all since you say you
use a browser for interacting with stuff on the web. you also don't
reject other apps since you say you use them too.

|The big gotcha with
| both the NYT web edition and the NYT app is, without a subscription you
| only get access to 10 feature articles per month.
|

I think we talked about this before. I never read
10 NYT articles online per month, but since they
must be counting via cookies, there should be no
limit if you just delete your cookies. Or better still,
set them to always be deleted when your browser
closes, if that's an option.

| So some screenshots from my iPad NTY app:
| https://db.tt/QG4v78oB
| https://db.tt/3mDIoEfO
| https://db.tt/fB5YqXDj
|

Interesting. It looks almost like the Web version -- just
simpler and with less items per page. But I don't see the
ad.

| They are in the business of selling subscriptions at a minimum of
| $19.99/month, not giving away free total access to their publication on
| the web.
|

I didn't realize they were trying to charge so
much. That's surprising.

They are actually giving it away, though. Many
people know enough to delete cookies. (I have a
very non-techie friend who asked me how he could
read more articles than the limit. He clearly had no
intention of paying, one way or the other.)

I'm sure that some people pay, but I think what
the NYT is really doing is a form of marketing. They
tell everyone it's subscription and they set a limit
that most people won't notice and many will bypass.
I doubt they expect it to work at this point. They're
just trying to get people used to the idea that it's
an online subscription. And hopefully down the road
they can *really* charge. The problem for them,
though, is that news is all over. The NYT does some
original stuff, but their journalism is not great and
notably biased toward business. And for basic news
there's just no way to compete. I read mostly BBC
and Wall Street Journal for basic headlines. Neither
is limited. (My own hometown paper, The Boston
Globe, is owned by the NYT. They, too, are trying to
do subscription. I no longer visit them at all. With script
disable their pages, which used to be poorly designed,
have now become completely unusable.)


| The only other option I can think of would be to spy on you and then
sell
| you out to a separate ad network that pays them a
| fee for ads they show you after you leave NYT.
|
| I rarely see ads in my browser, at NYT.com or
| elsewhere.
|
| The same is true for the app.
|

I don't see any ads at NYT. What I meant was that
I rarely see ads, period. There are some sites, like
the tech news site TheRegister, that actually host ads
on their page, so I see those. The NYT uses script to
spy and load ads. I can't even tell where the ads come
from, without a lot of digging into their script, which I
don't care to do. Maybe they come from NYT itself. Maybe
from doubleclick or some such. In any case, they're not
actual images on the page, hosted on the same domain,
so I don't see them.

I'm currently doing some work for a newspaper editor
who has his own take, which is interesting. He blames
Google. By his reckoning, newspapers can't get nearly
the same money for ads online, for two reasons:

1) The traffic just doesn't match the paper distribution.

2) Google sells ads cheap that are carefully targetted,
deflating the market so that it's not worthwhile for
companies to pay high prices for online newspaper ads.

I'm surprised that the papers haven't started something
like the Google system for themselves -- a consolidated,
national online newspaper ad service that any small
company could use easily, with any budget, to put targetted
ads in online newspapers. Maybe the real problem is simply
that online ads will never pay what newspapers are used
to getting for paper versions.

| often, an app will have two versions, a free version that's ad
| supported and a paid version (usually a buck or two, which is almost
| free) without ads. many times there is an in-app purchase to remove the
| ads rather than download a separate app.
|

This sounds better all the time. With apps I can
have ads *and* pay money. Well why didn't you
say so? Why have I been living in the past?

| what is an 'honest ad'?

If I visit somewhere.com, the people at somewhere.com
have a webpage that I load into my browser. An honest
ad would be an image that's actually on that webpage,
hosted on their domain. A dishonest ad is one that's coming
from someplace like doubleclick.com and typically loaded
into an IFRAME so that Google/Doubleclick can set a first-party
cookie for tracking. I never chose to visit doubleclick.com.
The dishonest ad is trying to trick me into visiting there.

(If you block doubleclick and don't block iframes you'll see
a surprising sight on many webpages. There will be up to
a dozen little browser windows with 404 error pages, in
the main webpage. Doubleclick, and others, are tricking you
into loading a dozen browser windows, where each window
is actually just holding an ad image. Each of those little
browsers can then run script and set cookies -- which is
why cross-site scripting bugs are a common form of malware
attack.)

People forget that these techniques used to be considered
no better than malicious hacking. Cookies were specifically
designed to respect privacy, with only the originating website
being able to set a cookie. Now we have 3rd-party cookies,
web beacons, scam 1st-party cookies set by using a iframe,
Flash cookies, supercookies....
Those are all sleazy, dishonest tricks to enable spying on
people. But for those of us who like tin foil it backfires
because it's very easy to block dishonest ads by simply
putting sleazy adservers in one's HOSTS file and/or by blocking
3rd-party content.

| you've obviously never used an app and are unaware of the advantages of
| a dedicated app.
|

For your gerbil, you mean. Yes, I can see how
my spacious 24" screen would make it difficult
for your little Herbie to read an article online
without walking back and forth. A phone or iPad
screen is far better suited to gerbils.

| in addition to a better user experience, an app can download new
| content in the background, which means users don't have to wait to
| download it since it's *already* there when they launch the app.

You're so cute. Browsers do that, too. It's called
pre-fetching. It's been irrelevant ever since high-speed
connections and can hamper privacy/security, which
is why I have it disabled through about:config in
Firefox and Palemoon. It's also a problem on phones
for a different reason, if you have a data cap: You can
end up pre-fetching videos and other files that you'll
never view but which add to your data download.

| by the way, iphone apps can't get a device id to track you, nor can an
| app get your name or other identifying information unless you provide
| it, such as for a subscription or logging into a service.

Again, all I can say is you're so cute. To think you
have privacy on an iPhone just leaves me speechless.